Bye Bye Bertie

poweredbyidris

mfin wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

I grew to appreciate him later in his career. Some of his most ardent supporters made him hard to like. Doping aside he was a proper bike racer and the sport will be worse for not having his attacking style in the peloton.

But he was a filthy doping bastard earlier in his career yeah? A cheat, an idiot, and part of a problem that completely shat on any clean cyclists potential to be competitive let alone to win anything?

This is why cycling will not miss him. It will be better off for every doper that retires.

I hear what you are saying, but post clen ban Contador you are still watching the same twàt.

Earlier watching him vs Rasmussen was mentioned. There are some people that will look that up and enjoy watching it, then there are others which watch it and are glad cycling doesn't seem to be like that any more.

It's worth reasoning that at some point Bertie probably was the victim of 'a problem that completely shat on any clean cyclists potential to be competitive let alone to win anything'

RichN95.

r0bh wrote:

EPC06 wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

Wasn't a deal effectively cut to go for the dodgy steak in order to avoid the plasticisers case being brought which would have put him in an even worse light?

As far as luck over the last few years, you make your own to a large degree. Clearly his bike handling skills and positional sense have been off hence the number of crashes.

From memory I think the evidence of plasticisers was damning but not actually punishable.

http://nyvelocity.com/articles/intervie ... -ashenden/

Although obviously this is very much one side of the story.

It's worth pointing out that the plasticizer test has never been ratified since because it was found to be unreliable and prone to false positives. The plasticizer angle was pushed mostly by those who had worked on the test.

slim_boy_fat

mfin wrote:

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

I grew to appreciate him later in his career. Some of his most ardent supporters made him hard to like. Doping aside he was a proper bike racer and the sport will be worse for not having his attacking style in the peloton.

But he was a filthy doping bastard earlier in his career yeah? A cheat, an idiot, and part of a problem that completely shat on any clean cyclists potential to be competitive let alone to win anything?

This is why cycling will not miss him. It will be better off for every doper that retires.

I hear what you are saying, but post clen ban Contador you are still watching the same twàt.

Earlier watching him vs Rasmussen was mentioned. There are some people that will look that up and enjoy watching it, then there are others which watch it and are glad cycling doesn't seem to be like that any more.

Doping in cycling is bigger than any one rider and I'm happy to give people a second chance. I used to be just as angry as you are about riders that doped but I've mellowed over the years. I wish doping didn't happen and every rider that dopes gets everything they deserve when caught. However, it doesn't make me as angry as it used to particularly stuff that happened in the past. I've realised that it is a very complex issue and there are all sorts of factors that lead to any rider making the decision to dope.

I've got less sympathy in today's climate but look at the past differently to how I did at the time.

lloyd_bower

DeVlaeminck wrote:

r0bh wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Officially Contador isn't guilty of much, not making sure he bought his food from a trusted source, his punishment for that is actually pretty harsh.

Officially Contador is guilty of taking supplements that were contaminated with Clenbuterol. That was the conclusion of CAS.

OK I thought they bought the contaminated steak story but if it's contaminated supplements it's still a lesser form of doping than Millar's epo use surely.

Few were silly enough to be doping on EPO after there was test for it, even in Pharmstrong's later tours he'd moved on to blood doping, little doubt that's what Contador would have been on racing for Bruyneel, Riis and the others. Like mentioned by others watch the Rasmussen v Contador highlights, and still convince yourself he was taking nothing or harmless Clenbuterol.

Millar again didn't fail any tests, just stupid enough to keeps some old EPO batches around his house. Least he admitted the use, though never honest about the extent of it.

yourpaceormine

SpecialGuestStar wrote:

Just missing a Frenchie' bandwidth grabbing montage

He's probably still in shock

sloppyschleckonds

mfin wrote:

But he was a filthy doping bastard earlier in his career yeah? A cheat, an idiot, and part of a problem that completely shat on any clean cyclists potential to be competitive let alone to win anything?

This is why cycling will not miss him. It will be better off for every doper that retires.

I hear what you are saying, but post clen ban Contador you are still watching the same twàt.

Don't sit on the fence MFIN, say what you really think of him

TheBigBean

RichN95 wrote:

r0bh wrote:

EPC06 wrote:

Dorset Boy wrote:

Wasn't a deal effectively cut to go for the dodgy steak in order to avoid the plasticisers case being brought which would have put him in an even worse light?

As far as luck over the last few years, you make your own to a large degree. Clearly his bike handling skills and positional sense have been off hence the number of crashes.

From memory I think the evidence of plasticisers was damning but not actually punishable.

http://nyvelocity.com/articles/intervie ... -ashenden/

Although obviously this is very much one side of the story.

It's worth pointing out that the plasticizer test has never been ratified since because it was found to be unreliable and prone to false positives. The plasticizer angle was pushed mostly by those who had worked on the test.

Plus the blood transfusion theory relied on there being two transfusions. The first resulted in plasticisers, but the second didn't. Dr Ashenden explained how this was possible, but CAS had lost interest and concluded it was unlikely.

tailwindhome

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Sorry, can't bring myself to hate someone who may or may not have cheated at sport.

This
Also, deciding who you like and don't like on the basis of who's been caught seems foolish at best.

confused@BR

What is often missed is the status of the victims of successful dopers. It is generally accepted that Cadel Evans was 'clean', what might he have won had he had a 'fair go' for much of his early career? Others with less distinguished palmares will also feel shortchanged. Wasn't there a fine Canadian rider who had her entire career overshadowed by an admitted serial doper? How must she feel?
When some say that there should be no controls and a 'level playing field' they ignore the long-term health hazards plus the fact that some react better to the drugs than others. Better keep it clean.

sloppyschleckonds

confused@BR wrote:

It is generally accepted that Cadel Evans was 'clean',

mamba80

Blazing Saddles wrote:

r0bh wrote:

josame wrote:

he looks good on his bike

I don't get why people think this - his much-too-upright out of the saddle climbing style looks poor and add this onto his TT bum shuffle and, whilst he's no Froome, he's definitely not stylish on a bike.

This.
Sometimes he looks more like he's on a trampoline than a bike.
Much like Tommy Voeckler, only without the tongue and nobody lauds his style as being pretty.
Marco Pantani going uphill, he ain't.

...still quicker than you!

watching him ride away from Froome in the Vuelta '14 /20 is great viewing but he divides opinion for sure, my GF hates him, his pistol salutes and drug doping, i dont care about the drugs, pro cycling is entertainment and the authorities have long kown about the drugs and did nothing, its too easy to blame the riders, they dont act alone.

TheBigBean

confused@BR wrote:

What is often missed is the status of the victims of successful dopers. It is generally accepted that Cadel Evans was 'clean', what might he have won had he had a 'fair go' for much of his early career? Others with less distinguished palmares will also feel shortchanged. Wasn't there a fine Canadian rider who had her entire career overshadowed by an admitted serial doper? How must she feel?
When some say that there should be no controls and a 'level playing field' they ignore the long-term health hazards plus the fact that some react better to the drugs than others. Better keep it clean.

And yet Contador, at his supposed doping peak, only managed to beat him by 23s in 2007.

gsk82

TheBigBean wrote:

confused@BR wrote:

What is often missed is the status of the victims of successful dopers. It is generally accepted that Cadel Evans was 'clean', what might he have won had he had a 'fair go' for much of his early career? Others with less distinguished palmares will also feel shortchanged. Wasn't there a fine Canadian rider who had her entire career overshadowed by an admitted serial doper? How must she feel?
When some say that there should be no controls and a 'level playing field' they ignore the long-term health hazards plus the fact that some react better to the drugs than others. Better keep it clean.

And yet Contador, at his supposed doping peak, only managed to beat him by 23s in 2007.

I watched the 2007 stage 14 on YouTube for the first time after reading this thread. The idea of Evans been clean did make me laugh.